Scruit

Better strap a 2x4 to his ass when they have sexy times or he'll fall in. Besides, that pic is obviously shopped. Here is the original.

I got a text message from my wife when she found the empty envelope...

The law could be enforced using speed / red light cameras. If you are in the left lane, nobody is in the right lane and there's nowhere nearby to turn left the a human is presented with a video of your lane use and decides if you get a ticket. But people will reject that just like they reject red light and speed cameras. They tell police officers running traffic enforcement to go catch murderers, but when they build a technology infrastructure that frees them up to catch murderers, we complain that the police should be the ones handing out tickets.

All you had to do is say you made a commission on the sales. Nothing wrong with that, just be honest and let us make up our own minds. Not being a dick. If someone came on here giving a rave review for a business he worked for without letting us know he worked there then that would raise an eyebrow or two. Same deal.

He's right but I am not. Hmmm.

There it is: How do we get around that? Is that even a valid standard? Are there any fixed magazines that be removed without disassembly of the action? Also: So we cannot have any characteristic that functions as a grip in front of the trigger. The magazine of almost any rifle can functions as a grip...

Like a baus! Oh. Like an intern.

Never did get an answer. The link you give us has your id in it, but takes us to a sales page not a profile page. This makes me think you're getting some kind of commission for any sales from your link. It looks like a pyramid sales scheme. If you are advising this as a product to use to lose weight then don't you think it's fair to let us know whether your recommendation is based upon the fact that you get paid when we buy it, no? EDIT: I looked myself. Pyramid sales scheme. No thanks. http://www.sabaforlife.com/en/63/default.aspx

Gotta take the rough with the smooth. The trick is to be smart enough to recognize the lies, myths and bullshit. And ignore those who give you crap for helping others by pointing out the lies, myths and bullshit.

I wonder how they got 4 counts of felonious assault. To me it should be 2 - one while on the bike, and the other for when he got off the bike. This all happened at the same time over the space of about 500 yards.

Agreed - he should be charged with attempted murder. Still, don't know how they get 4 counts of assault from a single combination of events that all happened at the same time and place. Understood, for different victims, but there was only one victim.

That makes sense. Media was controlled by news organizations, but facebook, twitter, youtube and forums have given grassroots organization much more of a voice.

Well, if he got all maximums to be served consecutively then that'd be 59 years (not 64, because one of the charges does not have the 5-year drive-by specification because he was off the bike) Does this event deserve 64 years in jail? Might as well just euthanize him now.

I'm reading the indictment now - they are taking him to the cleaners... 4 counts of felonious assault (3 "attempted to cause harm" and 1 "Did cause harm"), both of which have both the 2941.145 (Brandishing) and 2941.126 (From a motor vehicle) gun specifications. If found guilty, those two specifications will add 3 and 5 years (respectively) to any sentence. My guess? He'll please out to the "did cause harm" charge, get a couple years for that felonious assault, 3 for the 'brandishing' and 5 for the drive-by specification for a total of 10 years. (Or his plea may be to all 4 charges and in exchange they give him concurrent sentencing) The sentencing range is 2-8 years for and F2, and the judge could say concurrent or consecutive. So he could get anything from 2 to 24 years. There's some debate though. Under State v Moore, acts that are bound by time, space and objective count as one "transaction" and the gun specifications should be concurrent (http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/7/2005/2005-ohio-3311.pdf). BUT under State v Kehoe, the act of firing from inside a vehicle, then exiting and firing again were ruled as two separate "transactions" with consecutive specifications. A closer example, though, is State v Franklin where a chase with shots fired multiple times was considered a single transaction, and the 7 consecutive gun specifications were merged to run concurrently upon appeal. http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/7/2008/2008-ohio-4811.pdf

Again... We're all screaming about "shall not be infringed" and "civil war" but none of that happened in '94 with the first AWB. I like to have answers for anti-gun folks when they want to debate these things, but I've never figured out a good answer to why the first AWB was never challenged.

If they can't get what they want through legislation, what are the chances they'll try to repeal the 2nd? So what did everyone here do in '94? That ban passed with republican support and was never challenged.

Fair enough. No clue why I got it wrong. See you on the 23rd.

Wait, I thought it was the 2nd of Feb? Did it change? I never got a notification. Or is the 23rd a 3rd session?

Pulled into a pizza hut parking lot next to a ragtop full of cute girls. Tried to act all nonchalant as I got off the bike, but forgetting the kickstand put a quick end to that.

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2013/02/01/delaware-ohio-state-stillwagon-indicted-in-road-rage-shooting.html

You've made your "point".

The AWB also covers handguns. Have they said what a 'military feature' is on a handgun?